tv Today in Washington CSPAN April 7, 2011 2:00am-6:00am EDT
pressed the alert button to get the e-mail directly to you. the c-span video library has just won a peabody award for a contribution to history scholarship and public life. become much every program that has erred. over one henderson a thousand hoursji washington, d.c. through their lens. it helped them better understand the role of the federal government. >> president obama signed into law a bill that changes the face of health care in america forever. it is a patient protection and affordable care act.
2409 pages in length, it extend health coverage to 32 million uninsured people but will not be fully implemented until 2014. a group of individuals who applaud the law gathered in the backyard of a church in virginia. president obama outthrind elements of the patients' bill of rights that take effect. children's pre-existing conditions cannot be denied insurance. young people without insurance with covered by their parents' preventive care is covered by all insurance policies. >> over the long-term can actually save people money. because you get diagnosed quicker. all of these things are designed not to have government more involved in health care. they are designed to make sure that you have basic protections
in your interactions with your insurance company. that you're getting what you pay for. >> they announced the elimination of 130 jobs. retiring c.e.o. blames legislation. >> when it got down to the politics of making a final bill, the only thing that really is meaningfully in the bill has to do with health insurance and how it is financed. >> the measure if this law that will impact the industry the most is the change in the medical loss ratio. this provision mandates that insurance companies must devote at least 80% of the premiums to pay for medical claims. costs and profits these companies enjoy. >> i still question that provision. it just didn't make sense. it was a rather arbitrary decision and it is hurting the employment in wisconsin and around the country at a time
when jobs are hard to find. >> richardman, the financial analyst explains the impact of this mir on the insurance company. >> i think it is going to make it significantly more difficult for smaller companies to survive. >> in the absence of the affordable care act, i don't believe my position would have been eliminated. ron johnson, a businessman who has no previous political experience but his platform pivots of the repeal of the affordable health care act. jay walsh, his company employees 35 people blames federal legislation for the astronomical rise in his health care premiums. >> the problem as a small business i face today is we just
got our renewal and it reflected care costs for next year. we're at a period of time where it is challenging. we can't go to our customers with higher prices. we have already negotiated the best vendor prices we can. with profits depressed now i'm faced with a 25% increase. how do i allocate that cost down when i'm trying to provide jobs for these people? where do i go with costs? insurance representatives said we're not sure of the certainty. you're seeing the uncertainty in today's health care climate reflect a net increase. >> this is my hometown, walk shaw, wisconsin. it is a pretty town nestled on the fox river. we have a population of about 69,000 people. 10% live below the poverty line and thousands more just on the edge of desperation. the median family income is on
the decline from 59,000 in 2008 to 52,379 in 2009. these are not pretty statistics. they represent what my dad would call looming clouds. maybe this is where i should talk about my dad. he is 51 years old and suffered from krones disease. he has been opt hiesed 12 times. four of them in the last few years. >> they said all you need is one hospitalization and your file is as thick as a phone book. certainly the bills are just as thick. >> my dad is fortunate. he is a teacher and his insurance has been excellent, but he knows that could change. financial stability and good health balance on the same teeter-totter. it is a long way from
washington, d.c. where president john f. kennedy observed there are risks and costs but they are less than the long range risks and costs of comfortable inaction. this doctor favors this law because he sees the long-term payoff. >> well, the main ones are that everyone is covered because knowing some people that have gone through a devastating illness that has cost them, you know, everything, and you hear those stories over and over. sometimes you get kind of immune to it. you see the -- obama in the backyard of -- the woman and you kind of say ok. well, that is one story but there is, you know, 50 million stories out there and so universal coverage would be number one, pre-existing
conditions and coverage for kids health care, preventative care because that is going to pay off in the long run. you know, i think there are certain things that if the seeds sown now mr. l have a big payoff. those things will pay big dividends down the road. >> i know it is complicated and that its implementation will be a long, bumpy ride, but i find comfort in this legislation. in the end, i have the security of knowing that members of my family will never be denied treatment because of money. my family will never lose their home because of illness. because of the affordable health care act, it is now a security that everyone has. and that's the way i see it through my lens. >> go to studentcam.org to watch
all the winning videos and continue the conversation about the day's documentary on our facebook and twitter pages. >> as a host and i think as a trainer you're not necessarily a democrat or republican. you're looking another what the government is doing on the financial markets, whether it be the oil markets or trading or wall street firms. >> sunday, cnbc's "fast money" anchor melissa li on what she believes is her role in reporting business and financial news. watch the rest of the interview sunday night at 8:00 on "q & a." >> coming up next, the house budget committee works on a budget for next year's spending. later, it is "washington journal" live with your phone calls.
on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, we'll focus on federal spending and negotiations to reach a deal on the budget for this fiscal year to avoid a government shutdown on friday. our guests are representative mick mulvaney, a republican member of the budget committee from south carolina. democratic representative david cicilline from rhode island, representative dennis ross, a florida republican and another member of the budget committee, john yarmuth, a democrat from kentucky and we'll look at the effects of a shutdown with "washington post" reporter ed orgs keefe. "washington journal" is on every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> can the throvets a shutdown at week's end, house and senate leadership continue their discussions to fund the government to the end of the fiscal year. access each day's debates in their entirety at c-span's
congressional chronicle with complete timelines and transcripts of every house and senate session at c-span.org/congress. >> the c-span video library has just won a peabody award. now a year old, you can watch every program that is aired on the c-span network since 1987. over 170,000 hours of archived video, all searchable and free. it is washington, your way. >> the republican-led house budget committee today approved a spending blueprint for 2012. passing after a full day of deliberations on a 22-16 partyline vote. next stop for the measure is debate on the house floor, likely next week. the g.o.p plan seeks $5 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years as calculated by the associated press.
includes significant changes to the medicare and medicaid programs and changes to the tax code. paul ryan chairs the committee. this is four hours. >> we will begin with opening statements. next the staff will describe the chairman's mark and then we will proceed with consideration of amendment turned time limits in three tiers as we have been done in the past. before i begin my opening statement, i would lying to yeelt to the ranking -- would like to yield to the ranking member. >> we look forward to a vigorous but respectful debate over differences and with that, i
can't think of any other administrate i ever things that we have to deal with. >> thank you, mr. val van hollen. welcome to the markup for the fiscal year 2012 budget resolution. i'm proud to be here with my colleagues, today, these are men and women who worked hard to put this budget together trying to get our country back on track. i'm proud of all the hard work that you have done and the work that we're here to discuss and i just want to say on behalf of both pears, our staffs, the minority and majority side have done a fantastic job working around the clock and also the staff in the c.b.o.. i also want to thank mr. van hollen and your staff for your cooperation in plarings for today's markup. all year you have shown a commitment and mutual respect in keeping with the best tradition s of this committee. i'm proud that we are continuing this kind of tradition. we call this budget the path to
pros parity. it is because it is more than just a budge. this is a cause. it is a cause to get america's future on a good path and it is our commitment to the american people. the facts are basically these. for too long washington has not been honest with the american people. we have been making empty promises from a government that is going broke. the nation's fiscal trajectory is simply not sustainable. the debt is on the path to grow. we want to preempt that crisis and painful austerity. we want to fix these programs and get spending under control.
we want prosperity in this country. let me just go through some quick power points. what is driving our budget? take a look at these charts. thank you. this is a primary drivers of our budget. failure to address the big drivers of our debt, particularly our health care programs is not to address our debt. next chart, please. the more we kick the can down the road, the worse it gets. the fiscal gap. actually the fiscal gap should be the next chart. look at this chart. there we go. the general accounting. i can't speak that fast. the general accountability obviously has been telling us for years, we are making all of these unfunded propses to americans. the more we kick the can down the road, we go about 10 trillion dollars deeper every year we fail to act. we can still do it on our own terms but time is of the
essence. next chart, please. this is the other thing. let's go to the last one. go to the -- who all shares the debt? in the past, we have lent money to ourselves. world war ii, our debt went up as high as the entire size of the economy but most americans bought war bonds. we paid it to ourselves. 1970, a small fraction over the debt was owned by foreigners. 1990, still 19% of the debt was owned by foreigners. today, 47% of our national debt is owned by foreigners, particularly china. next chart, please. that is unsustainable. you cannot rely on other countries to cash flow your government. let's go to deficit path. this is the deficit path we are propose. this is not what we want but this is far better than where we are going, whether it was the blue line c.b.o. or where the president is taking us. the deficit path is disastrous under the president's budget.
next chart please. the debt held by the g.d.p. -- public as a percentage of g.d.p. it is just like to principal of your mortgage. you take on a mortgage relative to your income that you can support. same goes for us. the debt held by the public as a percentage of g.d.p. goes down under this budget, not just in the first 10 years but paid off overall. i'll show you that. debt under the president's budget gets it to that catastrophic area, 20% of g.d.p. when the economy really starts slowing down. next chart, please. spending still increases. now we are taking 6.2 trillion dollars out of the president's baseline. that is a 5.8 trillion cut out of the c.b.o. baseline. why? because we can't keep spending money we don't have. the problem here in washington
is not that the american people are taxed too little. the problem here in washington is that we are spending money we don't have. we have to address the problem. next chart, please. revenues still go up. even though we do fundamental tax reform, revenues still increase under these baselines. next card, please. this is the trajectory. look at where we are headed. federal spend. this is the size of government. by the time my three children, who are 6, 7 and 9, the government will be double what it is today. this budget keeps our historic sizor government where it has been so we can maximize the economy and economic freedom. next chart, please. deficits. now we all know the deficit is a share of the economy really matters greatly. whether or not you're getting the debt in the right direction or the wrong direction. this shows you the red line is
the status quo. it gives us catastrophic deficit spending. therefore catastrophic debt which accelerates us towards a debt crisis. we are getting it under control and paying it off. next chart, mies. it is about growth. we -- the model used by many, many firms around the country, what does this do? because it is all about path to prosperity. it shows us the effects of getting your spending under control. fast reform. preempting a debt crisis means more jobs for americans. it is expected this will create nearly 1 million new jobs. bringing unemployment down to about 4% by the year 2015. higher wages to the tune of 1.1 trillion. more economic growth to the tune of 5.1 trillion. higher family incomes. this analysis projects an
additional 1,000 for family income for families every single year. the whole point is what we are trying achieve here is to give our children and grandchildren a debt-free nation. to bring solvency and sustainability to these vital programs that people have relied ond and getting prosperity, job creation, getting this economy growing again. next chart, please. this is what it is all about. we are on a path of economic ruin. don't ask me. ask anybody else who has looked at this situation. this red sideline the c.b.o.'s projection of what our debt will be. we have a choice of two futures in this country. do we want to severe that american legacy that literally gives our children and grandchildren a lower standard of living? less opportunity? fewer chance for upward mobility for people in america? or do we want to get this debt
paid snauch >> the green line shows you what the path to prosperity does for us. how we get the debt under control and get it paid off. we can still do this on our terms. i urge my colleagues, let's get through this partisanship and let's get on to the business of saving this country and getting this debt paid off while we can still do it on our terms. the reforms in this plan are gradual. they are sensible. we borrowed granddaughters the fiscal commission. we asked the general accountability office. we took ideas from governments of the past. the c.b.o.'s computer crashes in 2011 because they can't conceive of a way the economy can continue after that. that is unconscionable.
this is something we can preempt. this is something we can stop. we owe it to ourselves and oir children and grandchildren and our fellow countrymen to get this debt under control. with that, i yield. >> thank you, mr. chairman . let me just start by thanking you and all of our staffs for their hard work. we gather to consider a long-term budget plan at an especially consequent rble moment for our country. as a result of the extraordinary actions that were taken over the last few years, america avoided a second great depression and is slowly emerging from the ravages of a financial meltdown and near economic collapse. while the economy is improving, millions of americans remain out of work through no fault of
their own and thousands more are facing home foreclosures as a result of their job loss. our top priority must be a robust recovery and putting america back to work. at the same time, we must act now to lay the foundation for sustained long-term economic growth. even before the economic meltdown, real wages for most americans had been frozen for too long while families faced rising costs. middle class families had been squeezed. we must implement a plan to support small businesses, grow the economy and ensure shared prosperity. that will require making strategic national investments to out educate, out ino vate the innovate and outcompete the rest of the world. to steadily and predictbly reduce our deficit and debt to accomplish a strong foundation for long-term growth.
mr. chairman, we all love america. we all believe america is a unique and special place and believe in american exceptionalism. the question is how do we keep america strong, dynamic and exceptional? on that, we clearly have different views and would make different choice. we believe our strengths comes not only from people pursuing their ambitions and dreams and sometimes harnessing those talents for important national purposes. webb america's grateness is the result of not only a collection of individuals acting alone but through our capacity to work together for the common good. we do not see the government as the enemy. but the instrument of what we can accomplish together as a people that no one can do alone. we all agree that we must act now to put in place a plan to
reduce our deficits in a steady, responsible and predictable manner. the question is how do we do that? as the bipartisan fiscal commission has indicated, any responsible effort to reduce the deficit requires a balanced approach that addresses both spending and revenue. this republican plan fails that simple test. yesterday erskine bowls and alan simpson stated that the republican budget falls short of the balanced, comprehensive approach needed to achieve broad bipartisan agreement mess to enact a responsible plan. -- necessary to enact a responsible plan. indeed, republican budget is the same tired formula of extending tax weeks from the rich and powerful at the expense of the rest of america except this time on steroids and dressed up with what we'll hear as a lot of nice, speet talk
about reform that masks the damage that this budget will do. to zpwoverpb to choose. and the choices made the the republican budget are wrong for america. it is not courageous to protect tax giveaways to big companies and other special interests while stashing investments in our kids' education, scientific reform and critical infrastructure. it is not bold to provide tax breaks to millionaires while ending the medicare guarantee for seniors and sticking seniors with the bill for rising health care costs. it is not visionary to reward corporations that ship american jobs overseas while terminating affordable health care for ten s of millions of americans. it is not braver to give governors a blank check for their initiatives and a license to cut support for seniors.
it is not fair to raise taxes on middle income americans to pay for big additional tax breaks for the very wealthy. yet those are the choices made in the republican budget. where is the shared sacrifice? we have american men and women putting their lives on the line in iraq and afghanistan while others hide their income in the cayman islands and switzerland and refuse they to pay their fair share to support our nation. the bipartisan fiscal commission called upon all americans to pay their fair share. its budget blueprint calls for the top 2% income earners to pay the same tax rates they paid during the booming economy over the clinton administration. their plan also generates another 1 trillion dollars in revenue over 10 years by closing special interest tax loopholes and limiting tax expenditures. the fiscal commission also
warned that very deep immediate cuts would threaten the fragile economic recovery and slow job growth. they also recognized that america must make strategic investments to win in the global markets place. the republican budget fails both of these tests and i would say that the jobs numbers we heard cited came from analysis done by the heritage organization, the same organization that predicted that the bush tax cutsor twaund 2003 would lead to booming job growth when we know we actually lost over 600,000 private sector jobs in north america. measuring has become an economic powerhouse in part because over the targeted strategic investments made by earlier generations including huge investments in science and technology, the interstate
highway system and educational opportunities for our people. now at the very moment, the very moment that our global competitors are copying our successful model, this bunl would take america back. now -- budget would take america back. now let me turn to the question of health care. every member of this committee niece rising health care costs represent -- knows that rising health care costs represent a huge challenge. those rising costs are not unique to medicare and medicaid. those costs are intemperature toik the to the health care system. over the last decade, the cost of medicaid actually grew more slowly than the rest of the health care system. by contrast in the private market for individual coverage, premiums more than doubled
between the years 2000 and 2008. those facts make one thing clear. if we're going to slow the rising costs in the medicare and medicaid without rationing care, we must slow the rising cost of health care throughout the health care system and that's whactly what the affordable care act was designed to do and will do when fully implemented. the affordable care act will going bring down the per capita health care costs throughout the system including medicare. including some of the mechanisms to slow the growth of systems
and eliminate excessive taxpayer subsidies to some of the managed care companies. in fact, the bulk of the medicare save information this 10-year budget comes from reasonable reforms we made the the affordable care about, which is especially startling given the fact that during the last campaign, democratic candidates faced a barrage of campaign attacks telling seniors we had slashed their medicare. what is new -- what is new in the republican budget plan is the termination of the medicare guarantee for seniors. it doesn't reform medicare. it deforms and dismantles it. it forces seniors off of medicare and into the private insurance market. it does nothing layne in the rising costs of health care but transfers the bill of those rising costs to seniors. seniors will pay more while insurance companies stand to reap a bonanza getting all the medicare taxes and premiums
people currently pay. if your -- your voucher or premium support, whatever you want to call it is not sutcht to pay for the benefits you need, tough luck. if your doctor is not on the plan, too bad. this republican plan simply rations health care and choice of doctor by income at the end of the day. it also rips apart the safety net for seniors in nursing homes and assisted living facilities as well as kids and individuals with disabilities who rely lie on medicaid. this is the biggest area of cuts in this budget. block granting medicate is simply code for keep cuts in support to our vulnerable seniors individuals with disabilities and low-income kids and giving governors so-called flexibility is a nice-sounding way of giving them a license to use federal taxpayer dollars to
pay for their favorite initiatives without oversight and accountsability. that is not reform. medicaid is already underfunded. block granting it in the name of reform is like throwing a drowning person an anchor. and the claim that dismanneding the medicare guarantee is necessary to save them is in my view simply or wellian. it reminds me of the statement that was made at one point that you have to destroy village in order to save it. democrats welcome an open debate about how we can build on the reforms in the affordable care act to strengthen and sustain medicare and medicaid but we will vigorously oppose any effort to undermine the integrity of these essential reports for seniors and vulnerable individuals. mr. chairman, we believe that the republican bunl is the wrong choice for america because it does not reflect what we believe are our values and priorities.
it does not reflect the best of the american experience. it recognizes the importance of individual self-reliance, that is an very important part of the american character but it fails to recognize the truth emblazened on the great seal of the united states. out of many, reunite as one out of shared values and principles toed a strans common good and make america strong and exceptional. and we will be offering next week, a democratic alternative so that people can see the choice before the country. thank you, mr. chairman . >> i put the gentleman down as a no, then. i'm glad you're doing -- that's good. at this time, we'll continue with our opening statements. i would like the yield five minutes to mr. garrett. >> i thank the chairman. since the beginning of his presidency, president obama has talked a lot about the need to address the grave fiscal outlook of the federal government.
the president created something called the national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform and he did that to address our medication that's challenges and identify policies to improve the fiscal situation. fittingly that report has been called the moment of truth. what did our president do during that moment of truth? well, he failed to lead. rather than rise to the occasion and make good on the faith that american people placed in him, the president submitted the most expensive budget in the history of america. the president's failure to lead is absolutely astounding. i agree with chairman ryan when he said basically the president has punted on his responsibility but the disappointment is further than just the republicans today. the co-charmente sum up the ppt's plans ongoing nowhere near where they will have to go to resolve our fiscal nightmare. in my opinion, rather than going nowhere near a solution, the administration has submitted a budget that puts us closer to
the crisis point. the president has proposed a $3.7 trillion in spending this year, over 25% to have g.d.p., a level we have not seen in the united states since world war ii. he would have us sustain that level for a decade. it gets much worse. this year the budget deficit is estimated to be around $1.6 trillion. over 10 years, it will total $9.5 trillion on a course to skyrocket to unprecedented levels. the debt level held by the public would rise from 6% of g.d.p. to 2011 to 87% of g.d.p. in 2021. with interest payment s that arecurrent, they are consuming a larger and larger percentage of tax revenues that flow into the government coffers.
we could be paying almost a trillion dollars in interest by 2021. when you a hole, stop digging. it is crystal clear that this one has a spending problem as the chairman said. this budget that the president proposes is not direction to go in opposed to the one by mr. ryan. rather in cutting spending degrees, president proposes to take more of the hard-earned money of the american people and he would increase taxes on families and small businesses by $1.6 trillion. all of this is even more daunting arithmetic when you think about it. these numbers have a real effect on the lives of individuals, families, businesses. should the president's proposal be enacted, it would doom american families to doing what? a crushing tax burden? result in ever increasing interest rates.
the president's refusal to lead in this situation threatens the american standard of living, the american dream and american status as a super power. i have so far focused what the president's plan will do but what is disturbing in this is what the president's budget does not do. it contains no significant reformses of social security, medicare or medicaid. annual spending on med kade is expected to rise to $2.6 trillion. it would eventually require what? putting the middle class in a 63% income tax brackets. and small businesses and upper class families in anle 8% bracket to pay for all of that. yet rather than cut spending back by the government, the president would send and overwhelming tax bill to the american people.
mr. chairman, everywhere you look, we are on the road in this country to bankruptcy. the president's budgets makes promises they cannot possibly keep. to be specific, our government has made 88.6 trillion in promises that it cannot keep. cutting spending and government programs are not easy. the american people did not elect us to take the easy way out. however in this moment of truth, the president did exactly that. i look forward to working with the members of this committee to from vide an honest solution to the american people. by cutting spending, balancing the budget and putting the united states on a road to sustainability and prosperity. with that, i yield back. >> thank you. i now yeelt five minutes to the gentleman -- yield five minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. price. >> thank you, mr. chairman . i want to commend you and all of my colleagues for the great work that has been done on this budget. i'm somewhat amused in listening to my friend, the ranking member
in his opening comments and in the comments that have come across the press since the introduction of this piece of legislation. my friend says to zpwoverpb to choose and he is right. last year, as the committee and the nation will note, the choice last year by our friends on the other side of the aisle was to do no budget at all. i think they might have even taken back to the m.o. they had in many pieces of legislation during last four years and that is not even reading the bill because if you read the bill, it is inconsistency with the charges that have been leveled this morning and yesterday. i'm reminded of president reagan, to paraphrase him, about our friends on the other side of the aisle. it is not that they are wrong or ignorant. just that so much of what they know just isn't so. and it really is -- my ears just
-- it is hard to comprehend what is being said on the other side. what we have strule a choice. a choice of two futures. as the chairman identified. this graph is startling. the red here, the debt as a percent of g.d.p. goes to 9 100% of g.d.p. -- 900% of g.d.p.. that's president's plan. that's the party's plan. it is unsustainable. the american people know that. the solution is the path to pros terity. the green at the bottom that gets us to balance an on that path to balance over a period of time. mr. chairman, the american people really are sick and tired of washington's accounting tricks and budget gimmicks that you have mentioned and the empty promises. during the course of today's markup we will here more demagoguery.
false claims from the other side. i believe disease that brand of politics that have prevented us from addressing the american people in an honest and factual manner. our budget and path to prosper city a bold vision for the future based upon facts. it puts the united states on a path to prosperity by cutting in its first year $600 billion off the deaf spifment no more trillion dollar deficits which dep other side has become enamored with. house republicans will save more than $6.2 trillion compared to the president's budget over the next decade. we begin with repeeling and defunding obama care. as a physician, i can tell you it is a threat to the affordability and accessibility and quality of health care, all of the principles that we hold dear in american health care are violated by obama care.
the facts are it takes away choices from patients and families and physicians and saddles workers and taxpayers with trillions of dollars in costs. further, we will save -- we will save and preserve meled medicare for future generations by providing a common sense solution so, so that folks will have access to the same choices that yes, members of congress do. you heard it talked about on the campaign trail. you heard the president say what we need to do is give the president the same kind of insurance that members of congress have. that's what our proposal does, allows individuals to have that same kind of coverage. it is fair for people to recognize that nothing, cho changes occur for those in and near retirement. no changes for those 55 and above. many folks, especially on the other side of the aisle would rather bower burr their heads in the sand.
i talked to a lady just the other day in my district, a new medicare patient who cannot find a medicare physician. the program is broken and is unsustainable. the status quo is unacceptable. so what we do is honestly and factly reform the program. medicare program. it is a guaranteed issue to seniors of this country through our program. so by completely repeeling and defunding obama care, we will advance patient-centered health reforms which simultaneously move us from an requester of debt, doubt and despair into a stable and secure future. i'm honored to support this path to pros terity. >> thank you. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin. >> thank you. i support this budget resolution today and think the chairman and members of the committee and the committee staff for all of their hard work. one simple reason i'm advocating
for this budget is that we have to stop spending money we don't have. it is a simple concept, if you only have $6, you can't spend $10. but that's what we do every day. every do 40 cents of each dollar spent by our government is borrowed. it has got to stop. not 30 years from now. not 20 years from now. it has got to stop with us. this committee must lead. chairman ryan, i thank you for your leadership on this. as many of my colleagues have explained, the way this budget gets us back on the path to prosperity, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have begun to do what washington always does. for political gain today, they jeopardize tomorrow by distorting what is in this budget while denying the reality s of this situation, which is much too serious for demagoguery. as a former small business owner, i fully understand how important it is for a congress to untangle job creatorses from
the maze of tax loopholes that hurt our economic growth and shrink our tax base. for many of the same principles, this budget takes on tax reform. corporate tax rates are the highest in the industrial world. if we're really going to make it in america, we have to incentivize corporations to stay in america rather than pushing their businesses elsewhere where it is cheaper. by lowering tax rates and bringing the top rate down from 35% down to 25%. we'll promote economic growth and job creation, exactly what americans need today. by implementing corporate tax reform, we'll improve incentives for them to work and invest. thank you for this opportunity to work, debate and vote on this budget. i yield back. >> thank you. i would like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from missouri. >> thank you, mr. chairman . i'm going address myself to this section of the bunl particularly dealing with the armed services
committee. as many of you may remember, it wasn't so many weeks ago that we all stood up and put our hand up and we took an oath of office to among other things to by the u.s. constitution. that is to provide for the common defense. common sense would suggest to us that if we are being attacked by foreign country or bombed or whatever, our interests are being destroyed, then our life, lirkt and pursuit of happiness isn't so valuable if we do not have a decent national security. and so that is a top priority. in that regard this budget is quite austere. we are taking the 178 billion in savings identified by secretary
gates following 100 billion which could be reinvested in higher priorities and wiser spending and returning 78 billion to retire some of our debts and deficits. that will -- i say this is a very austere budget and i want to try to put that in perspective. i am an old army guy but i had three sons that went the wrong way. they went to the naval academy and chose the marine corps. i don't know what i'm going to do with them but nonetheless at least they do take seriously their responsibility as young people to stand up for our country. if you take a look at where we are now, in just very macro kinds of numbers, you don't have to be much of an expert. just think of it in terms of the number of troops or soldiers, the number of aircraft and the number of ships that we have. in each of those categories, we are roughly now at 50% of where we were 20 years ago.
our navy today is the same size as our navy in 1916. so our military would not be what you would call fat by standards of certainly 20 years ago. we're half weight. that being understood, i would have problems with this budget if it were not for the fact that we're dealing with an economic reality which is most austere and stern. and it requires all of us to take a very solid look at our spending and deal with the fact that we are vastly overspending the revenues that we can assume we can generate from within our own country. and along those lines, i think that given the overall balance of what we to v to do, that have budget is probably the best compromise that we could come up with. i have heard comments from the
minority leader here that they are about what is responsible, what is courageous. my sense over the america that i know comes from the state of missouri is an america that has a can do and a positive attitude. an america that says yeah, we have had some problems before. looking back on our history. we have had some whopper big problems but americans have had this responsibility we're going to hike our britches up, tighten our belt and go forward. we're going to talk about things and come one the best solution and move forward. and somehow or other, i feel it is up to the standards of what america is all about, our history or what the great constituents that we represent say when we just play the rocks at somebody else that has an idea. i would expect the criticisms much more when the democrats were in power last year, if they had a budge. they didn't have a budget.
instead, we brought this budge forward trying to find a good balance even though places like defense are pretty tight. what we're hearing is a lot of criticism but i think i like what we do better than what the democrats don't do. thank you, mr. chairman . >> at this time, i'll yield five minutes to mr. mcclinic tock. >> thank you, mr. chairman . >> history walks with us as we begin our work today. fortunately it offers some guidance as well. history offers not a single example of a nation that has ever spent and borrowed and taxed its way to prosperity but it offers us many examples of nations that have spent and borrowed their way to economic ruin and bankruptcy. and history is screaming this warning at us that the nations that bankrupt themselves are not around very long because before you can provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare, you have to be able to pay for it and the ablingt of
our nation to do -- ability of our nation to do so is now in grave danger. throughout these hearings, economists from every part of the political spectrum have warned us that we have at best just a few precious years left to avoid a sovereign debt crisis and potentially the financial collapse to have united states government. forge fortunately history also offers us lessons of what to do and whatnot to do. we know whatnot to do. her better how do you ever responded by increasing federal spending by a staggering 60% in four years. he began by imposing the smoot hauly tearive tax. he ended by boosting the federal income tax from 23% to 35%. president roosevelt expands
these policies. we had lost an entire decade. in 1945, harry truman abolished the excess tax. in 1946 truman cut the federal budget from $85 billion down to $30 billion in a single year. he fired 10 million federal employees. it was called war demobilization. the kinsians at the time predicted 25% unemployment and a new depression. instead we had an economic boom. we have more recent examples. i reach out to my friends on the other side of the aisle to join them in the praise of bill clinton. we have to look at the policies that produced the prosperity. during his administration he reduced federal spending by 3% of g.d.p.. he dared to touch the third rail of retirement spending.
he signed what amounted to the biggest capital gains tax cut in history on home appreciation. he delivered the only four-budget surpluses in the last 40 years and a period of pronounced economic prosperity. by contrast, george w. bush is worthy of criticism. again, we have to look at the policies to be critical of. he recklessly boosted federal spend big 2.5% of g.d.p. he reintroduced the discredited folly of stimulus spending and approved the biggest expansion of entitlement spending. he produced massive budget deficits. if that was the road to prosperity, i submit the bush administration should have produced the new golden age for the economy.
let's put partisanship aside and concentrate on policy. in the mid 1990's, a republican congress and a democratic president following precisely the approach outlined in this measure balanced the budget, reformed entitlement spending and placed us on a path to pay off the entire national debt and produced a period of economic expansion and prosperity. this budget before us today turns us away from the policies that we know do not work toward policies that we know do work. it brings federal spending back under control and puts medicare and medicaid on a sound financial foundation. it produces a million new private sector jobs through economic expansion and places our nation on the path so that when my children retire, the retirement systems they will have paid into during their entire lives will be safe and secure and their nation will be debt free and prosperous.
i yield back. >> thank you. at this time, i would like to yield five minutes to mrs. black. >> thank you, mr. chairman and it has already been said, we all know what we're here today for and that is to consider a budget draft that i believe is a courageous first step in getting our country back on a sound financial footing. the fact all of us know but some of us are denying is that our nation is on the brink of a financial crisis. america is 14 trillion in the red and thanks to the big spending of washington, d.c., the tidal wave of debt is coming unless we stop it now. i came to washington, not to score cheap political points or to throw bombs. came here to find solutions to the problems that threatened the very greatness of this country. i look at my six grandchildren and i want them to have the same opportunities that i had growing up and i believe this budget is a start on getting us there.
but the truth is if we don't leave our grandchildren and our kids a better future unless we act like adults today, and have a real conversation about our future economic growth. let's start with the basic premise we all should be able to acknowledge. that is that no budget can sustain itself by spending more than it takes in. it applies to the family budget and it needs to apply to the washington budget. this plan applies to that principle. our budget locks in savings with enforceable spending caps for 2012 and it lays a plan for spending caps for the next decade. we address not only what washington spends but also how our tax dollars are spent. keeping in mind that our current $14 trillion debt, this budget
requires any increase in debt levels to be accompanied by serious spending reductions to levels set in this budget resolution. it's time to get serious about the culture of big spending here in washington that has brought us to the edge of this financial cliff. i challenge everyone, everyone here today, to have a serious discussion about the future of our country and what we can do to fix this fiscal mess that we're in. thank you, mr. chairman . i yield back. >> at this time, i would like to yield five minutes to mr. hills from kansas. >> thank you, mr. chairman . i appreciate the opportunity to speak today about one portion of the budget and i want to note that yesterday when the budgets committee, at least our side unveiled to the public our vision for the country, one thing was evident. washington has to change the way it does business. it has to stop thinking that all
problems can be fixed with more money, more federal intervention or a combination of the two. one item i'm particularly supportive of in the republican budget is the change in the way that states receive medicaid funding. if left untouched, the cost of medicaid will soar out of control and the program will continue to overtake a large share of the budget with regards for efficiency, effectiveness and invasion of vegas. -- innovation. some think to make sure medicare can continue to exist is just to throw more money at the problem. from my experience with medicaid in kansas, i know that is not solution. when serving on the kansas senate, i was on the medicaid task force. we looked at ways the states could improve medicaid services and spend money more
expectively. the state of kansas and many other states are limited to what we can do with the money from the federal government but also the state's share. specifically we were looking for a way to keep persons on medicaid from having to go in nursing homes. we wanted to find a way to help beneficiaries stay in their homes but still receive the medical care they needed and we did construct a plan that improved care and saved money. amazingly as well, even our democratic governor, kathleen se bell yuss signed up on to this plan. it was the waiver was rejected in washington. 451 waivers have been granted in the medicaid program but there are untold thousands that were rejected. we tried to find out actually how many had been denied over the years but c.m.f. didn't want
to tell us, probably for obvious reasons and our rejection was one of them. it is disappointing that so much authority web wrapped up at the center for medicaid services. it is disheartening that kansas and other states have to bow to washington when trying to do good things for the people of our states.
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the chairman's mark fully funds needs of our military service members, veterans and their families. there are 9.5 million beneficiaries. utilization rates are much higher than other health care plans and because it is what i would refer to as a rich health
care plan. the budget preserves these benefits, unchanged from their current structure for active duty service members. many eligible retirees and their families. they have endorsed reforms of the program to increase cost sharing of $2.50 a month for enrollment fees and $2 to $3 for pharmaceutical co-pays. these reforms are levels that have been unchanged since 1995. for veterans as a whole, this provides a high level funding for year 2013 for veterans medical care and provides access to medical services. in both areas this budget implements and keeps faith with the men and women who have risked their lives to save us or
are currently risking their lives to protect our freedom. it answers the charge of president lincoln who care for him that has born the battle and for his widow and orphan. our budget has being the road to ruin budget. i would ask the democrats what was your budget? what was that budget? in the four years that you governed prior to this, you had your chance. we lost 7 million jobs during that time period and added to the national debt. we want them to have paychecks. i yield the balance of my time. >> i yield the balance of my time. >> thank you. let me just get in a few things. the letters to the c.b.o. it is unsustainable unless
changes are made, they predict medicare's looming financial troubles, let me quote, their looming financial troubles could lead to reduced access of care. their own projections say medicare goes bankrupt in 2021. you have to do something to save medicare. medicare is going bankrupt. so the question is do we fix it now so we can preserve benefits or do we just ignore the problem and do surgery on it at the last minute and cut everybody? that's not the smart thing to do. the average -- is 15,000 per senior. it is designed to be the average benefit and then it grows from there. on top of that, given that we should not be comparing ourselves to some mythical unsustainable medicare glide path, even obama care says that is unsustainable. we're coming up with a system
that makes it sustainable. more to the point. medicare is not going to be able to grow like it is in the future because it consumes all federal revenues. all at the end of the day. that is unsustainable. why don't we make necessary changes now to make it work better? why the changes that we are proposing, because we have experience with these models. the prescription drug benefit came in at 40% below cost because it harnesses the choice of competition to give the seniors more choices. private plans can be against each other for benefits for people to use. so if you're saying this privatizes medicare then it is already privatized. it already delivers care through private insurance plans. so the question shouldn't be about private or public. it is already using private entities. how do we make solvent and what
should we do in future given the limited dollars? make sure that low income people get total coverage. let's make sure as people get sicker they get covered too. and then we say this. i like to think the other side of the aisle would kind of agree with this. wealthy people have money because they are wealthy. we don't need to subsidize them as much as everybody else. so more for the poor. more for the sick. less for the wealthy and we grow these at sustainable rates. we bring the program to sfensy and we save med -- solvency and we save medicare. you not only save medicare, you help prevent the country from going off a debt cliff. at the end of the day, we have to stop the demagoguery and fix this problem because if we keep kicking the can down the road,
it is going to be really ugly and that helps nobody, especially seniors among them. i yield back. >> you asked what our plan is. well, on the screen here, we have our plan. the affordable care act is the retirement reform. it produces $500 billion worth of savings. you talk about more this, more that. bottom line, it is more profits for the profit-rich insurance companies. do we really believe they would do it cheaper? we're asking our seniors to pay more for less. more pain for our seniors at the expense of those with deep pockets. so it is for these reasons i'm offering this pro medicare amendment today. i would ask for support of this amendment. we talked about c.b.o. and site their findings and indicate in their findings they suggest by
2022 beneficiaries will pay -- their costs will more than double and by 2030, those costs will more than triple. this is a road down the wrong passage way that will impact our seniors severely. it is really showing priorities here for the other side that are wrong and i encourage the board of the amendment and yield back my time. >> all those in favor say aye. >> mr. garrett. mr. garrett, no. mr. simpson. mr. simpson, no. mr. campbell. mr. campbell, no. mr. calvert. mr. calvert, no.
mr. pascrell. mr. pascrell, aye. mr. honda. mr. honda aye. mr. ryan. mr. ryan, aye. ms. wasserman shuttles, aye. ms. moore. quie. ms. captor. ms. captor, aye. mr. schuler. mr. schuler. aye. >> out of respect to our senior and disabled community, yes. >> ms. bass, aye. chairman ryan? >> no. >> chairman ryan, no. chairman, on that vote, the ayes are 16 and the noes are 22.
>> there being 16 ayes and 22 noes, the agreement is not agreed to. next we are on to mr. dogget's amendment. >> amendment designated at number two offered by mr. dogget. and offshoring of u.s. jobs the make it in america agenda that chris jobs and living standards. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized for nine minutes. >> thank you. i think most americans recognize if you want a slice of the american pie, you ought to help bake it but there are certain corporations that seek the justice of the american courts and the protection of the american military and all the other rights and benefits of being american without paying their fair share for that right. indeed, a number of our largest corporations pay an effective
tax rate that is lower than the jan tomorrow crews cleaning their offices. -- janitorial crews cleaning their offices. that is not right. in 1986 reagan signed into law a measure that raised tax revenues on corporations in order to help pay for tax cuts for individuals. this budget in contrast appears to propose a net reduction of the type that has been urged by a number of corporate interests to the ways and means committee already this year that would be paid for by either shifting the burden to individual or borrowing more money from the chinese or both. today, we have seen our republican colleagues refuse to name even one tax loophole that they would close or one tax expenditure that they would terminate.
for those corporations that are not paying their fair share today, they seem to be offering all sugar and no medicine. they insist upon a statutory tax rate cut for corporations while implying that it will be paid for without explaining exactly how. these are multinationals like g.e. which continues to use existing loopholes to make, as it did in a recent year, $14.2 billion on its worldwide income without paying taxes at home. or large pharmaceutical companies that pay effective tax rates in the teens while the community pharmacy in our neighborhoods across america that would be dealing directly with those who are ill may be paying two or three times as much in an effective rate. at the expense of working families and small businesses, the republican approach gives the largest corporations a statutory rate cut and leaves them with their big tax
loopholes as well. i believe that this republican plan simply encourages the continued export of jobs overseas. a business that is deciding we built our factory in ohio, texas, wisconsin, knows that its profits from such an endeavor will be taxed immediately. our -- who choose to build overseas will not face any immediate taxes. it is an incentive built into our tax code. this amendment would close the international tax loopholes that encourage companies to invest abroad rather than at home. it would prevent g.e. from avoiding taxes on its businesses abroad. it would prevent a corporation from deducting interest on its loans here against american taxes at the same time it doesn't report any income
immediately on the very factories that it borrowed the money to build abroad. when some talk of maintaining global competitiveness, they mean slowly the multinationals' bottom line. i believe that we need to focus on making america competitive. on having a tax system that encourages jobs being created here in the united states and our nation is coming pettive, not just because of its -- competitive, not just because of its tax system but because we have a system that fosters innovative thinkers. we have adequate legal protections and because we have a military second to none but that costs money to have it that way and these who benefit from it should share in the cost. this amendment in essence closes those loopholes and uses the funds that are generated by closing those loopholes to both
expand our vem in education in addressing the crumbling infrastructure of our bridges and roads across the country and then it uses some of the proceeds as we should to actually reduce our national debt and with that opening, i would yield two minutes to my colleague from ohio, ms. captor. >> i thank the gentleman from his excellent amendment and i would like to say that the best solution is his amendment to creating jobs in america. as the key path to balancing the budget because when people are working, they are paying their taxes. doesn't take a mental giant to figure that out. we just endured the largest transfer of wealth in american history from main street to wall street. we see corporate profits are at an all-time high. the problem is they are not hiring people and most are not investing in this country. the gentleman mentioned general electric and we know the same thing is true for citigroup.
they want to invest everywhere in the world other than here even though the american people just build a them out. 75% of the goldman sachs securities trades that got us in this fix that we're in were traded through the cayman islands. that great tax haven. it seems to me we ought to have some muscle and brains to help the american people. i want to compliment the gentleman for trying to close those tax breaks and loopholes that the u.s. international corporate tax structure uses to ship our jobs overseas. every one of us represents companies that have done exactly that and then those good come back here and our unemployed workers are stuck with the bill to bail out the very same banks that have financed those corporate relocations. all the numbers show that investments and improvements in our streets and educationings, streets for jobs and education for our future are the two best investments that we can really
make and i think that the gentleman red sox hello hit the nail on the head here and recognizes that the only way we're going to balance the budget is to get job creation in this country and everybody has to be on the table including those who have really gained the system on their own behalf. not on the public's behalf. i commend the gentleman for his amendment. >> we seek the same objection of debt reduction but we believe to sustain a competitive economy, we need to be advancing our investment in education from pre-k to post grad. that means avoiding the cuts that are proposed in your budget for pell grants, for head start and other educational programs. we can have the education to strengthen our workforce at the same time that we address our national debt by closing these loopholes and ensuring that everyone contributes to the cost
of the world's greatest democracy. with that reserve for -- >> i yield back. >> i will yield 10 minutes to myself for opposition and then share with mr. flores. first, let me talk about the infrastructure. aside from having fiscal concerns of starting a new program, concerns about using 10 years of taxes. these things typically when they are set up become fiscal time bombs. let me talk about the tax side of this, though. we are going through lots of these. we had fisk, e.t.i., we have done years and hundreds of hearings on the international tax code. it is very complicated. there are problems with the allocation rules, the interest allocation rules, no two ways about it. this side of the tax code is a mess.
it is just a mess. why not make america a tax haven. if we're encouraging all of these companies to do all of these things overseas, park their money? the cayman islands? park their money in america. our tax code is one of the reasons they don't. the rest of the world is on a system called teartorial tax system. an american company makes money overseas it pays the american tax and the overseas tax. let's take harley-davidson. a great milwaukee company. we make proud hogs. we export them all over the world. they are made in milwaukee. we make it on the line in milwaukee and if it is sold in chicago, it is taxed at the u.s. tax rates. if it goes to germany and it is competing against a honda motorcycle, and we sell it, we pay the german tax and are the u.s. tax. the japanese, who make the
honda, only pay the german tax. what does that do? that means we get double taxed on our exports and our competitors get single taxed. we lose, they win. so we have this deferal system. that wasn't working. remember with 945% of the world's consumers outside -- 95% of the world's consumers outside of this country, we make things here, sell them there, to have prosperity. high living standards. so this deferal thing is set up to make sure that when we sell that harley in germany, it is only taxed once to be able to compete against it but then when harley brings that money back eventually then we tax it again. yet we have these different kinds of rules that mr. dogget is getting at. let's just scrap that whole system so that we are incentivizing making more harlemies in milwaukee and
harleys in milwaukee. so what happens is when we make something here and send it over there, they tax it as it goes into those countries. when they send something here, it doesn't get taxed on the way in. so we are double taxing our exports and single taxes imports. we are putting ourselves at a disadvantage. there is no wonder why we have a troverpbed foreign companies buying u.s. companies. because of tax laws. there was no american shipping industry. all these foreign countries bought u.s. shirps because we took away deferal. so the goal of this mark is to instruct the ways and means committee to clean this mess up. i'm not saying exactly how to clean it up, but let's have a
tax system that encourages companies to be headquartered in america. let's have a tax system that encourns companies to build things in -- encourages companies to build things in america and sell them overseas. because now with all the loopholes in the deferal because some people want to take atway ability to defer, you end up double taxing our exports. we lose exports, which means we lose jobs. so i don't think this is the right way to go. i think this is a dangerous -- and this ought to be dealt with in the ways and means committee under fundamental tax reform, which by the way, we have to lower our corporate tax rate. the fiscal commission agrees with all of that. i was part of all of those meetings. i think most economists would agree.
you to lower the corporate tax rate you want the u.s. to be able to thrive and survive in this era of global competition. >> thank you, mr. chairman . this says it all right here. the top sideline the u.s. corporate tax rate. 35%. the bottom line represents the average tax rate of eecd countries. as you can see, we're going the wrong direction when it comes to competitiveness. if you want to have fewer u.s. jobs vote for mr. dogget's eam. if you want to see a perfect example of this, look at the states of noninternational companies. states to my state of texas. we have created more jobs and the reason for that is we have an attractive environment in which to do business. the same thing happens in the international company environment. companies are moving. i've seen in last four years,
there have been three international companies that have moved their headquarters from houston, texas, to overseas and they took jobs and billions of dollars of payroll and billions of dollars of taxes with them. that's not the direction we want to go. we want corporations to insource into our country. to locate in, to move into our country. if you adopt mr. dogget's amendment, we will continue to accelerate the process of people moving out. i could not agree mr. with mr. ryan's recommendation to scrap our current tax system and have a tax system that offsets the problems that we have here. if we do that, we'll have a great growing economy, more tax revenues and have the ability to fund our infrastructure and perms that we need. and any educational improvements that we need. we would go exactly the opposite direction if we follow mr. dogget's amendment.
do you like g.e.'s c.e.o.? i'm curious to know. anyway, i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. doggett, you have one minute to close. >> we have had some success in texas. one of the companies that decided it didn't want to pay for any of that success is transocean. the world's largest rig builder that did such a great job in the gulf last year. it kept its employees in houston. it just moved its corporate charter to switzerland so that it could avoid paying its fair share and renounce its american citizenship. the solution that mr. ryan has for tax loopholes in the code is to create a bigger one called
the tertorial solution. i don't believe anyone supports double taxation. that's why we have a system of foreign tax credits to avoid it. this amendment is a simple way of closing loopholes and asking general electric and everyone else to live better by contributing their fair share, by paying the same effective tax rate that their janitor pays. >> the question is on agreing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, all those in favor say aye. those against say no. a record of vote is requested. the clerk will call the role. mr. garrett, no. mr. simpson, no. mr. campbell -- mr. calvert.
>> the amendment is not agreed to. next i believe we're going to the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. honda, i believe. amendment designated as number 7 offered by mr. honda. stop cuts to elementary and secondary education into head start. >> mr. honda is recognized for nine minutes. >> budget should not just be exercises in accounting. they are an expression of values. budgets articulate a vision. chairman ryan was right to call this budget a path but unfortunately it leads us astray. how can we ever achieve prosperity if our children are not properly educated? the u.s. is trailing behind the other developed countries. if we drill down to what this
means for students, the results are even more disturbing. next slide, please. regardless of which metrix you favor, only 1/3 of our children are able to read on grade level when they reach the 12th grate grade. when you combine this that they have only a 1-5 chance of graduating from high school, the picture gets worse when we look at mathematics. in the world where we know science, technology, engineering and mathematics is the key to success, only 25% of our students is in position to peruse studies in college when they leave high school. we know what causes this problem. poverty. students from our low income schools have the lowest achievement in the world. republicans and democrats work
together to pass no child left behind and the individuals with disabilities act but we this ever have kept our promise to fund them properly and now, starting with hr 1 and in continuing to do the budget, the republicans have cut further into education turning their back on our children and on our future economically and jobs. next slide, please. i implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join the right thing and join me by passing this amendment. look at the jobs you have cost your states and look at the effect it is having on the children in your districts. this slide shows the number of children in your districts that will lose title one support if the cuts you voted for in hr 1 take effect. you can find your own districts in each one of those columns. next slide, please.
these slides show the number of poor children in your district who'll lose slots in head start. because of the cuts you voted for. this slide and the next slide will show the cuts and the loss of -- to head start slots in your districts if you go for the cuts. next slide. next slide, please. ok. now i would like to yield 90 seconds to my colleague, ms. moore. >> thank you so much mr. honda. and thank you for offering this amendment. folk, the research is in. the data has been tabulated. the debate is over. really critical years of brain development and critical for learning.
that's why parents spend so much money on bach tapes and beethoven, multibillions of dollars on learning for their preschool age children and it is why head start has enjoyed bipartisan support since 1965 providing a range of comprehensive education, nutrition help, parental involvement and opportunities. we should not cut this program. if we expect to have a competitive workforce in the future. giving kids an educational opportunity before age 6, before kindergarten is scientifically important and i yield back. >> thank you. i would like to yield 90 seconds to ms. castor. >> it is wrong. colleagues, it is wrong to cut back on the investment in america's students and schools.
while the republican budget guards and protects the special interest tax breaks to those that have the ability to hire high-paid lobbyists up here in washington, d.c. it is wrong to eliminate education jobs and protect those tax earmarks in the spending through the tax codes. we're offering this amendment to provide us with a choice here. we gain a greater benefit in america and our hard-working families do and our communities that we represent do when we invest in students and schools. let's continue to invest in them. it is also important that we restore the republican cuts to head start. head start works. this is an initiative that has proven successful all across america. requires parents to be involved and ensures that students get a new trishes meal. they have books in their home. why would you want to cut back on something that is proven to
work. it is more important to from vide big tax breaks to special interests? this is a very modest investment in our students that pays great dividends over time. in america's economic fight for global competitiveness, we have got to ensure we have an educated workforce and the most important thing to do, ms. moore is right, is to focus on those kids in early childhood because it ensures student achievement in later years. it ensures that we have the workforce to compete with anyone else in the world. so rather than protect these special interest tax earmarks and loopholes, i urge you to support the honda amendment and stand on the side of our students, our schools and our teachers across america. i yield back. >> thank you. i yield one minute to my colleague, mr. yarmuth. >> i thank my colleague. within of the things that we know as one of the greatest
crisis facing this country is our dropout rate. one of the greatest predictors of someone who is likely to drop out of high school is their lit r.t.a. -- literacy and early childhood development. it has proven to be the most effective way to help improve literacy in our students and what we do if we keep these students in school, gets them through high school, we essentially are reducing our long-term deficit by billions and billions of dollars. one estimate that if we can -- there one million and 200,000 students a year dropping out costing billions over their lifetimes by making sure we sustain the investment that we begun. literacy programs, we can continue to make inroads against literacy and improve our graduation rates and improve our
long-term economic output. if we don't, nothing we do in this committee or elsewhere in the congress is going to make much divens. i yield back. >> thank you. i would like to yield one minute to mr. ryan. >> i thank the gentleman. these are the things that we have been talking about here. we will not do anything to ask the top 1% to pay a nickel more and we are cutting programs that we know as i stated earlier, for every dollar we invest, we get $17 return back to society. many people on the other side talk about how they are business people. that is a good investment and we need to make it and this is a clear choice that we have in this budget. we're not going to ask a millionaire to pay a nickel more but we will cut these programs that we all know when we make the investment, get a $17 for every $1 we spend return back to
our country and to our society. how are we going to compete with 300 million people in the united states against 1.3 billion in china over a billion people in india if we're not willing to make some pretty basic investments in early childhood. it doesn't make any sense. >> let me close with this idea that we're going to be funding this with the major oil companies' moneys and instead of using the tax earmarks, tax deductions for corporate -- >> the time for the gentleman has expired. do you seek time? >> thank you, mr. chairman . well, i heard a little bit earlier that our budget is all sugar but no medicine. here comes some medicine. budgets are about choices. we have to make choices. and it is time that finally a
congress will begin to make choices that really matter for our children. we talk about u.s. students not being globally competitive and i agree. they have not been and yet we're spending more money than any country and if money were the solution, if money is really what matters in all of this, we would be ranked number one or number two. yet money is not the solution. holding teachers, schools accountable for performance will help. i'm going to talk about this a little bit as i close later but i would like to yield a minute of my time to mr. mcclintock. >> i thank the squa for yielding. it struck me.
the most important contribution is to get its nose out of our classrooms, put the teachers back in charge of the students, put the principals back in charge of the teachers and say to these massive and expensive impressive state bureaucracies that have grown up. maybe you should not be in the public school system. yield back. >> i would like to yield back to my colleague from tennessee, ms. black. >> thank you. i do want to take a look at the amount of money that we're currently in this mark up as well as our hr 1, the reductions would be to the 2008 levels and it would be savings of 694 million. but now let's turn our attention to how much money we are spending and let's also look at what kind of return on investment we're getting from
those dollars? to help to close the achievement gap of our children that are disadvantaged. school districts receive funds through the no children left behind. we know that's where the reading listen to these results. math and reading scores in high schools are unchanged over the past 40 years while science scores actually saw a slight
decline through 1999, the last time this test was administered. through reading and science, the gap between wealthy and poor students has not narrowed in 40 years and in math, it has only narrowed barely 1%. an increase of 2/3 of the program's total funding and the education jobs bill passed in august provide another $10 billion for schools for the use of teachers including teachers of disadvantaged students. $7.2 billion of the state's stabilization fund act was set aside for education, state grants and it is still unspent and still available for states and schools to use for support of their teachers and education programs. i know that the language in this amendment, these dollars are supposed to not only bolster
student achievement but also support tens of thousands of teaching jobs and yet we have money that is sitting and still unspent. nearly $550 million in fiscal year 2010 is still available under the school improvement grants act for schools that are not meeting their target under the no child left behind act. something isn't working. it doesn't matter how much money we're putting there if there is not results. we're putting these children that are at risk in a disadvantaged situation? terrible situations where many times they are going to failing schools and i have seen in this my own state because we're not holding accountable the
institutions that are receiving the money to make sure these students are receiving the best that they can get. i hope as we get ready to look at the re-authorization of the no child left behind that they will take a look at some of the islands of excellence. i have looked a them. to use those programs that are working and stop the old rhetoric of we just need to spend more money to make this happen. i think it is unconscionable that these children are not getting the best because all we're talking about is dollars. i yield back my time. >> would the gentlemanwoman yield? >> not right now, ma'am. >> >> thank you, mr. ribble, thank you, mr. chairman . i want to make some comments about the head start program as a father of a 1-year-old and 3-year-old. i agree with my colleague when she says that is the time 1-4
for brain development, organ development. the last thing i want for my kids or anyone's kids, regardless of family income, is for them to rely on the federal government for their well-being. fact of the matter is the fralt government federal government is a bad nanny. there are kids that need some help. there are many good parents, neighbors and non-profits and if needed, local governments, that can help these kids more efficiently. even more aggressively. we don't need nameless, faceless washington, d.c. bureaucrats and laps around the city with our money to get the job done. also as a member of the budget or the education committee, i would say since 1974, we have raised spending on education 188% and as your own information shows since 1974, we have seen
no scholastic improvement. i yield back. >> thank you. i said at the beginning that budgets are about difficult choices and education is a hot button for every single american parent 3789 i have raised two children and had two grandchildren and it is important to me. i would hope as we look at our educational system in this country, we can have an honest dialogue about where we are at. we have to begin at some point to no longer accept the status quo. the status quo is not working. at some point, the only way that we can have the medicine for the status quo is to first recognize that we have a problem. that there is a sickness in our system and it doesn't work. and the idea that modest cuts to one program is going to jeopardize the entire educational system is just not true. what it will do, though, is it will begin to send a message to
those running those programs that they have to fix them. the results of an independent head start impact study indicate that the benefits of access to head start at age 4 are largely absent by first grade. it is worse even for those 3-year-olds. who go into the program. in fact, the study cited that it had negative impacts on 3-year-olds. so the time to begin to challenge the status quo is now. the time to send a message to managers who are mismanaging is now. in my company, if i had a division that was operating like head start, i would first begin to withdraw funds to that division to force management to do better. and then if they didn't better -- we'll have a minute at the end, ma'am. if they didn't do better, if we didn't do better, then you would begin to add additional changes until you at some point got improvement to the program. and so we're not advocating no
money here. in fact, we have been spending $7 billion a year. we just are advocating that no longer will the status quo be acceptable and mr. chairman, i yield back. >> will the gentleman yield? >> the gentleman yielded back his time. who is the author of this amendment? >> i am. >> america, not germany. >> well, ok, we're talking about choices. we're talking about changing this country. when the feds got involved. the feds got involved the first time, the civil rights of youngsters in certain states of our country that believed in equal but separate. but the constitution to the supreme court said that doesn't work. choices. yeah. i'm making choices. my children didn't have -- didn't need title one, didn't need head start. they got it when i was able to
afford it. we are talking about youngsters who don't have parent or have the income to be able to afford it. it is our responsibility. we make the choices. the problem is that when we talk about curriculum, we look at policy makers to determine curriculum and policy makers don't know didly about curriculum or what goes on in the -- so yes, let's make choices. those grants reflect the students in your areas. let's make the choice for them, or don't. >> the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. all of those in favor say aye. those say no. i request that the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. garrett, no.
aye. mr. yarmuth. aye. mr. pascrell. aye. mr. honda. >> in the name of those children who don't have choices, i say aye. >> mr. honda, aye. mr. ryan. aye. ms. wasserman-shultz. aye. ms. moore. aye. ms. castor, aye. mr. schuler, aye. mr. tomko. aye. ms. bass. aye. chairman ryan. >> no. >> chairman ryan, no. >> are there any members that wish to vote or change their vote that have not voted? >> mr. chairman, on that vote,
the ayes are 16 and the nos are 22. >> the amendment is not agreed to. are there further amendments? i believe ms. wasserman-shultz. >> clerk, designate the amendment. >> designated at number 8 by ms. wasserman-shults. stop cuts to research for cancer, strobe, diabetes, heart disease and other illnesses at the national institute for health. >> recognized for nine minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman . i offer amendment number 8 which prevents harmful cuts to critical michigan at the national institute of health. cancer, strokes, diabetes, heart disease and other illnesses. without this amendment, the republican budget contains devastating cuts that would devastate the nation's biomedical research program.
it has had countless scientific breakthroughs. it is no coincidence that our country has been at the forefront. our nation has prioritized federal funding for decades. so many major break throughs for cancer or other diseases would not have happened without support. this is at the core of why mortality for cancer and other chronic diseases has declined over the years. unfortunately the republicans want to derail that process by cutting grants to research at n.i.h. it is completely off the mark. democrats and crens agree that we need to make cuts but reckless and shameless cuts are the wrong approach. democrats are pled to measure all legislation by the yardstick of creating jobs, bringing down the deficit. unfortunately by slashing the funding for disease research at
n.i.h., the republicans' reckless plan fails on all accounts. it kills jobs. grants support more than 350,000 highly skilled jobs in all 50 states plus an additional 800,000 supporting jobs created in the private sector. this means that the republican budget puts over 1 million jobs at risk from pharmaceutical jobs to technicians working in medical labs. it threatens the recovery of local economies all across our country. n.i.h. funding supports programs at 3,000 universities, medical schools and research institutions across our great nation. slashing funding as our nation weathers this recovery would be devastating to towns all across measuring. finally the cuts to n.i.h. increase the deficit. each dollar generates more than twice as much in business activity.
a $2.21 return for every $1 spent. at the same time, the work revitalizes our nation's economy. the results of their research reducing the cost of chronic disease and the ballooning cost that add to our debt. it could save our budget billion s of dollars. an estimated 5.4 million americans have a.l.s. alzheimer's disease. caring for them costs an average of $5,000 a month. it could save $50 billion a year in health costs. five genes were tied to discovering alzheimer's. if these cuts were in place, would that have been possible? we know that smart investments in prevention and care can drastically reduce the huge cost of caring for terminally ill patients.
we can make smart investments in our nation's medical and fiscal health and we must make these kinds of investments. cancer has -- is projected to nearly double by 2020, particularly among the aging baby boomer population. it has never been more vitale that we -- vital that we continue. people are battling breast, lung, prostate cancer. they are making strides in reducing our nation's worsening epidemic of cardio vascular disease. we must eliminate these afflictions. as a breast cancer survivor, i understand the importance of strong medical research. yet for all our progress, we have a long way to go. this year in your own state of wisi